Alright, I would like to spend the last 5 pages of New Physicsassembling the Glossary so I can remember where I left off whenstarting the 6th edition.

About the 4th chapter should discuss the error of a Doppler redshiftof light, because the Maxwell Equations do not allow for it. Light isrelativistic physics and so it matters not what speed the sourceorigin is going for light travels at only one speed. In Old Physics,they were just too much excited over a prospect of gathering distancesto stars by wanting and wishing for a Doppler shift to give distance.But science does not work on wish and dream fulfillment, but ratherscience works on laws and the laws of special-relativity of theMaxwell Equations does not grant a Doppler shift for light. Theredshift occurs because light is traveling in a space that is highlycurved, and when light is bent because space is curved, it shifts to amore red wavelength. Doppler shifting does occur in sound waves, butnot light waves.

Another huge error of Old Physics was a failure to report all theinstances of Rigid Body Rotation or Solid Body Rotation, such asSaturn's Rings, Red Spot of Jupiter, sunspots and flares of the Sunand the many galaxies with solid body rotation. The way old physicistsof Old Physics handled solid body rotation was that they under-reported instances of it, and when they actually reported instances,they applied a false conjecture to solve the problem-- they imagineddark-matter and dark-energy, rather than simply say that Newtoniangravity or General Relativity gravity are fake theories that can neveraccount for solid body rotation.

But I wrote lots and lots about those two errors and so all I need isto organize.

But let me not forget to include the derivation of the E=mc^2 viaMaxwell Equations.

Deriving E=mcc purely from the Maxwell Equations; energy ?and mass aredualities not equivalenciesAlright, I need a chapter on how the Maxwell Equations derives E =mc^2, which I like better writing as E = mccI like that because in the analysis we consider the maximum possiblemomentum of a mass m as being P = mc since there is no speed greaterthan c.So that we ask the relativistic question of the Maxwell Equationsthat ?commonplace energy of kinetic energy isE = 1/2 mvvand so, what is the maximum possible energy since the speed of lightis maximum speed and it is a constant.Would we have E = 1/2mcc ? ?The answer is no, for the maximum would bemcc ?not 1/2mcc.In the literature there are many logical arguments that derive E =mcc, except they get hung up on not applying relativistic MaxwellEquations to eliminate the constant term of 1/2 or any other constantexcept that of 1.One Argument, usually called the Units argument:

E = FD, energy = force x distance

F = MA, force = mass x acceleration

E = MAD

V = D/T, velocity = distance/time

A = V/T, acceleration = velocity/time

A = D/TT

E = M(DD/TT) = Mcc

Now the reason that physicists never accepted that as a full fledgedproof, is that they were unsure the constant in front of Mcc issomething other than a 1.But in their haste to object to the argument, they failed to applyMaxwell Equations as relativistic.Application of Maxwell Equations:1) c is a constant speed2) c is a maximum speed

Now, we have E = M(DD/TT) = mc^2

If the constant K in Kmc^2 was something other than 1, suppose it was1/2mcc as in kinetic energy 1/2mvv, then we have the speed of lightless than c. If the constant K were greater than 1 then it violatesthe c as maximum speed.

Second Argument: ?We have a second logical units argument usingmomentum rather than ?kinetic energy:

P = MV, momentum equal to mass x velocity

P = FT, momentum equal to force x time

E = FD and relativistic D is thus c, for if not we violate c is amaximum

E = Fc

now since F = ma and where light speed cannot accelerate but remainthe constant c we have

F = mc

Substituting we have

E = mcc

So the units argument of both kinetic energy and of momentum rely onremoving all constants K except for the constant of 1. And those areremoved by the two facts of light speed-- a constant and a maximum.Only the constant 1 allows no contradictions to light speed.But the logical argument above tells us more about the thorny issueof ?rest mass versus energy. Are we to believe that the twotransitions from one to the other, as a equivalence or equality? Orbetter yet, that the two are dualities. For example when a electronand positron annihilate, are we to believe the rest mass no longerexists and converted to a light wave energy, or that the rest massesstill exist in the light wave? For a answer to that question we lookat electricity and magnetism. Are we to say that electricity equals orequivalent to magnetism? Or better say they are dualities, wheredepending on the experiment used, displays electricity more thanmagnetism or displays energy more than mass.A nice analogy is a slinky toy. The toy is rest mass of a particlewhen packaged in the box. When let loose and stretched as far as itcan stretch it is energy wave. But it is still a particle, only astretched particle.So physicists have to be very cautious about equal signs andequivalence statements, because when we get down to the axioms ofphysics, the Maxwell Equations, electricity, magnetism, particle,wave, rest-mass, charge, energy, time, distance, there is no equalityor equivalence but duality and duality transformations.We do not speak of the equivalence of proton to electron to that of aneutron. We think of the proton and electron as duality of charge andthat they reside inside the neutron until the neutron decays. So theformula 0 = -1 +1 is not saying the neutron equivalency of electronand proton, but rather the duality of parameters involved.We still use the equal sign and the equivalence sign borrowed frommathematics and we use the language of equal or equivalent, but inphysics, we should not mistake our borrowing of mathematical symbolswith what is physically going on. Energy is not equivalent to mass,nor is electricity equivalent to magnetism, but rather they aredualities of physics.Duality is a concept that is lower than what equality is a concept inmathematics. In fact, mathematics has no concept lower than equality.But Physics is richer than mathematics and physics subsumes all ofmathematics. And so, in physics there is a concept of equality, but aconcept even lower in that of duality.

--

Google's (and Bing's) searches and archives are top-heavy in hate-spewgenerated by search-engine-bombing. And the Google archive stoppedfunctioning properly by about May 2012 to accommodate Google's New-Newsgroups. And recently Niuz.biz (Docendi.org) threatens to harm yourcomputer if opening a post of mine.

The solution to the sci. newsgroups is to have the sciences hosted bycolleges and universities such as Drexel University hosting sci.math,not by corporations like Google out to make money. Science belongs ineducation, not in money motivated corporations. Do I hear a Universitydoing sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.biology, sci.geology, etc etc

Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fairarchiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: